Enlightenment, Rousseau: The Social Contract

Rousseau believed that to uplift ourselves out of the state of nature, man must partake in the course of being the sovereign that provided the protection. The contrast between Rousseau’s concepts and those of the liberals of his time, originated with different understandings and interpretations of the state of nature. Classical liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobbes defined the state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to one’s property was always an existent. He

In this book, Rousseau aims to discover why people gave up their liberty and how political authority became legitimate. In his case, sovereignty is vesting in the entire populace, who enter into the contract directly with one another. He explained, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remains as free as before.” That was the fundamental problem which Social Contract provides the solution.

In Rousseau’s essay he starts off with an extremely powerful quote that stays, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (59). Rousseau is referring to the slaves that are being held captive. Everyone is born free in this country, but he is not in this. He is considered a slave from day one. He compares this first section of his essay to family and how they interact and bond. I thought that when Rousseau says, “The oldest form of society- and the only natural one- is the family. Children remain bound to their fathers for only just so long as they feel the need of him for their self- preservation. Once that need ceases the natural bonds is dissolved” (59). We eventually grow apart from our families naturally whether or not we actually realize it, but if we decided to be bonded with them and stay it’s a choice. The ruler is your father and he is your master. One of Jefferson’s famous sayings in the Declaration of Independence is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

Rousseau further emphasizes this idea by stating that “Government . . is wrongly confused with the sovereign, whose agent it is. What then is government? It is an intermediary body established between the subjects and the sovereign to keep them in touch with each other. It is charged with executing the laws and maintaining both civil and political liberty....

Rousseau is theorizing from the concept of the general will, which promotes individuals to become conscious citizens who actively participate as a community to form policies for a governing structure. The general will advocates for a commitment to generality, a common interest that will unite all citizens for the benefit of all. Rousseau states, “each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau 61). The general will is an expression of the law that is superior to an individual’s

With this, all peoples are equal and completely free or, to put it more eloquently, “in giving himself to all, each person gives himself to no one” (Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Basic Political Writings. Hackett Pub. Co., 1987. p. 148). In this respect, Marx and Rousseau share common ground. They both believe that a community or state ruled by all needs to exist to ensure freedom for all. Marx and Rousseau agree that control that comes from above/without/utilizing force can never be rendered legitimate. Likewise to Rousseau, the core of Marx’s notion of freedom is epitomized in this phrase: “Liberty is, therefore, the right to do everything which does not harm others” (C., Tucker, Robert, and Engels, Friedrich. The Marx-Engels Reader, First Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1972. p. 40). The break between the two is most noticeable concerning Marx’s central idea that the procurement of the rights of production is the key to freedom. When human beings are estranged from their labor they are estranged from themselves, from each other, and, ultimately, made subjects because of it. Freedom necessarily means that human beings must have the right to produce freely as production is a natural extension of oneself. As we shall see, this problem is only exacerbated by civil society.

One of Rousseau’s most accredited books is “The Social Contract” in which he explains his beliefs and views on the best way to approach and create legitimate government. Rousseau explains that a government’s purpose is to unite and bring people into harmony and understanding under the general will of the population. He also elaborates on the idea that the government should not only represent the people, but the citizens themselves must be actively involved in politics, society, and civic duties. Additionally, one must have an involvement in the lawmaking procedure and decision because if they are part of such, they would work without objection with the confidence that whatever helps society will be favorable to them. Rousseau like Locke had

To better understand Rousseau’s thesis and social contract he proposed, we must first understand why Rousseau felt compelled to write and his main criticism of society during the 18th century. In sum, Rousseau argued that states (specifically France, though never explicitly stated) have not protected man’s right to freedom or equality. Rousseau began The Social Contract in dramatic fashion. He wrote, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (1). This quote is still used today, and is a powerful description of Rousseau’s central issue with society. He believed that every man is “born” naturally free—he has full autonomy and can do what he chooses. However, Rousseau argued that man is bound to the injustices of society.

This paper, in reference to On the Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke, determines that Rousseau delivers a more compelling depiction of human nature in relation to society because he contextualizes the origin of man in a world that is pre-societal, and thus employs relevant rhetoric to characterize said nature, whereas Locke’s argument lies with the acquisition and protection of property, and employs then-contemporary constructs to assert his claims. First, we must look at how these two great thinkers typify humanity. To wet the palette, Rousseau begins with a bold statement foreshadowing his larger argument about man’s unfortunate condition: "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains." Here Rousseau suggests that no man is truly free as he exists in the world today because the so called “chains” holding him down are the societal laws by which man is beholden to. This is significant because from the outset Rousseau wants to set the stage very clearly that his continued description of the “natural state” of man is something that had to be changed if humankind was to survive and is no longer attainable and that we must depart from traditional thinking to understand what liberty means--an idea we’ll come back to later.

The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In

     Rousseau would not take these charges lying down, however. Looking at us in the new millennium, he might suggest that we are not free at all. On the whole, we may lack any kind of personal agency or initiative. We often have difficulty interacting with one another in any meaningful way, and it could be argued that our decisions and behavior are largely dictated to us by a consumer culture that discourages individual thought.

“Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains” Explain what Rousseau means by this with reference to Rousseau’s accounts of freedom in the state of nature and in a civil society.

By setting aside all the facts, Rousseau creates a state of nature that proves man to be naturally free and good. Once Rousseau sets aside the facts he creates a story that shows man should be “discontented with your present state, for reasons that herald even greater discontent for your unhappy Posterity, you might perhaps wish to be able to go backwards” (133). This is true because man is free. Rousseau starts by “stripping this being, so constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he may have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could only have acquired by prolonged progress” (134). Man in his beginning is unsophisticated and irrational nothing more than “an animal “(134). But, in nature man has no authorities. In nature “men, dispersed among them [other animals], observe, imitate their industry, and so raise themselves to the level of the Beasts’ instinct, with this advantage that each species has but its own instinct, while man perhaps having none that belong to him, appropriates them all, feeds indifferently on most of the various foods” (134-135). Men learn from other animals and imitate their moves but are forced to

In light of this change in man’s nature, several of Rousseau’s more shocking claims can be reconciled. The most striking—that man must be “forced to be free” by compelling him to obey if he does not wish to abide by the decision of the general will voluntarily—appears much less paradoxical when viewed in the context of society’s shaping effect on the individual. Rousseau sees human nature as a constantly changing set of predispositions, and law is one of the forces shaping these dispositions. This is most clearly seen in his justification of censorship, in which he contends that “not nature but opinion determines the choice of [people’s] pleasures” and that “when legislation weakens, morals degenerate,” establishing a causative relationship between good laws and good natures (IV.vii.3-4). Thus, for a man to be forced to be free is merely for his nature to be fully

On the one hand, a political community ruled according to the general will would advance the freedom of its members. Rousseau believes that obey the general will is freedom, because the general will